We consider manuscript refereeing a highly-regarded and honorable service to the readers and the scientific community at large. Reviewers play a pivotal role not only in evaluating individual manuscripts but also in determining the overall quality of the journal. Therefore, we take great care when choosing reviewers, considering their expertise, reputation, and past experiences with them.

Confidentiality

Reviewers should treat the entire review process and any correspondence with strict confidentiality. They should not discuss the manuscript with anyone not involved in the review process without the editor's prior consent. The anonymity of the reviewers is essential for an objective review, and we do not disclose their identities to the authors or other reviewers unless a reviewer specifically requests us to do so.

Timeliness

Our aim is to complete the review process and publish manuscripts as promptly as possible to maintain the timeliness of published research. We ask reviewers to respond to the editor's initial contact within 24 hours and to submit their review report within 5 days unless otherwise agreed with the editor.

Constructive Feedback

Reviewers should consider that authors have likely put significant effort into their research and manuscript. Therefore, review reports should be critical yet constructive, avoiding offensive or discouraging language. Reviewers' reports are typically conveyed to the authors as written, but in rare cases, if a review contains unfair language or reveals confidential information, we may edit it appropriately.

Review Report Content

When writing your review report, please consider the following points:

• Originality: Is the work original and novel? If not, why?
• Interest: Is the work of general or specialized interest?
• Research Question: Is the research question clearly defined and answered?
• Design: Is the study adequately designed to answer the research question?
• Abstract: Does it correctly summarize the study?
• Introduction: Does it provide an appropriate basis for the study?
• Methods: Are the methodological details sufficient? Is the statistical analysis appropriate and sound? Are additional statistical tests needed?
• Results: Are the results logically presented and do they answer the research question?
• Discussion: Is the literature appropriately and fairly cited? Are the results clearly and justifiably discussed in light of published literature?
• Conclusions: Are the claims and inferences drawn from the study justified and convincing, or do they need further evidence? Should additional conclusions be drawn from the presented data?
• References: Are they up-to-date and relevant? Has any relevant reference been omitted?
• Ethical Issues: Does the research raise any ethical concerns regarding the use of animal or human subjects?
• Overall Readability: Is the manuscript clearly and concisely written? If not, how could it be improved? Could it be shortened?

Qualifications & Requirements for Potential Reviewers

• At least 2 years of research or working experience in the related areas of the International Journal of Latest Research in Science and Technology .
• A doctoral degree or higher is preferred, or 5 years of experience of specific domain.
• At least 5 publications in the same topic area of the International Journal of Latest Research in Science and Technology .
• Relevant working experience is preferred.

Reviewer Responsibilities

• Confidentiality: Reviewers must keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
• Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers' comments and decisions should not be influenced by their knowledge of the author(s).
• Clarity: Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments in 500 to 800 words.
• Citation of Relevant Work: Reviewers may identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
• Identification of Overlaps: Reviewers should alert the editor to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Benefits for Reviewers

• This role helps to establish your identity as a well-known expert in your field, leading to increased invitations to speak at conferences and demand for invited research in your specialized area.
• Reviewing manuscripts keeps you up-to-date with the latest research in your area of interest.
• Your input helps shape the journal and address urgent societal needs.
• Your ideas and subject input may help in arranging special issues on topics of your interest.
• Editorial board members and reviewers are entitled to a 20% discount on publishing their articles in MNK Publication.
• Access to the latest research before others, positioning you as a leader in your research community.

Joining as a Reviewer

If you are interested in being a reviewer for the journal, please join us via MNK Publication's online system:

1. Register: If you have not registered before, please create an account at Register Here
2. Update Profile: Update your profile with your latest information.
3. Subject Area: Select your subject area of expertise.
4. Upload CV: Complete the necessary information and submit your CV.
5. Login: Use your username and password to log in at Log In